You can grow weed in the US. Main imports would be cocaine and heroine. Mexican cartels could shift what they make sending weed to the US to other criminal activities, and continue to make money off of the other major, hardcore drugs, so they really wouldn't be affected much.

The downside could be, if anything, an effect from people in the US who sell weed. Selling weed is easy-- not as hardcore. The people no longer selling the weed, if it got to the point where people were just getting it from stores, would move to harder drugs and/or other hard crimes like armed robbery.

It could definitely mean more guns. Selling weed, you really don't need a gun, but if you are selling crack, it's a must, and it's obviously a must for robbery.

You might see a jump in harder drugs also. The demand for drugs would also change, if you consider the variables. People get addicted to drugs, then the demand is almost automatic after that. If you saw an increase in supply, access, more people involved in dealing, more people getting over weed (some view it as a "gateway drug"), you could see more people getting addicted to more hardcore drugs, and thus rise in demand. That part is speculation, but it could still happen.

The Paradox Of Fools And Wise Men:
“The whole problem with the world is that fools and fanatics are always so certain of themselves, but wiser men so full of doubts.” ― Bertrand Russell

(30-10-2012 05:16 PM)Stark Raving Wrote: If a cop sees weed, of course he has probable cause to search. But I know that when I have a body stashed in my trunk, I don't leave a bag of weed on my dash.

It's YOUR responsibility to not give a cop probable cause.

But then, if you are in keeping with your current trend, you'll argue just for the sake of arguing.

Seriously Stark?
We're going down that road.
How about you stop being a little bitch because Lucradis got his knickers in a twist.

What, a guy can't offer a hypothetical counter argument to something that everyone here agrees with should be legal.
I thought that's what that thread ended up being about, to much chatter not enough decent debate.

You can grow weed in the US. Main imports would be cocaine and heroine. Mexican cartels could shift what they make sending weed to the US to other criminal activities, and continue to make money off of the other major, hardcore drugs, so they really wouldn't be affected much.

The downside could be, if anything, an effect from people in the US who sell weed. Selling weed is easy-- not as hardcore. The people no longer selling the weed, if it got to the point where people were just getting it from stores, would move to harder drugs and/or other hard crimes like armed robbery.

It could definitely mean more guns. Selling weed, you really don't need a gun, but if you are selling crack, it's a must, and it's obviously a must for robbery.

You might see a jump in harder drugs also. The demand for drugs would also change, if you consider the variables. People get addicted to drugs, then the demand is almost automatic after that. If you saw an increase in supply, access, more people involved in dealing, more people getting over weed (some view it as a "gateway drug"), you could see more people getting addicted to more hardcore drugs, and thus rise in demand. That part is speculation, but it could still happen.

I don't think making it legal would mean necessarily that your local drug dealer is going to go out of business, but it will mean he could be taxed.
That's the beauty of making stuff like this legal, you can tax and regulate the market. You actually make that market safer.
In saying that it would be very difficult for your local drug dealer to compete with stores.

It happened here with prostitution. Now women can work safer because the market is regulated and things like lighting and extra cop patrols can be put up and around etc.. Instead of dodgy pimps you now have dodgy businessmen.
If I was a prostitute I must say I'd rather be managed by a businessmen then a gang member.

There's so many factors in making it legal, it's not a simply matter of "free up cop resources".

(30-10-2012 04:58 PM)Stark Raving Wrote: It's an interesting thought. I'd be curious about how it works in other countries. Here in Canada, they don't use pot as a reason to search. Mostly, pot is found in a search for something else.

Besides, here and in the states, cops can't search you or your property (including a vehicle) without a warrant or probable cause. That is, unless you give permission. The vast majority of searches done in north america are done with consent.

The phrase, "I do not consent to any searches" is your best friend. When you are told, "if you have nothing to hide, why not just let me search. You are being suspicious" simply reply politely with, "my right to privacy is very important to me. I do not consent to any searches."

Bravo. To many fucking idiots fall for stupid-ass lines by the cops like "You're not doing anything illegal are you?" "Good, then you won't mind me searching you vehicle, do you?" Which intentionally phrased so that either yes or no could be interpreted to mean your giving him the go ahead. This is why you say "I do not give you my consent to search my vehicle." Fucking plain English and is pretty irrefutable. At this point they will probably ask you "Why not?" or "If you have nothing to hide..." or something to that effect. At this point you can either not answer their question, or tell them something like "Because I value my privacy." I hope all the children payed attention, this is valuable information. Fucking use it. All of the veteran stoners adults already knew this but I thought I would spell it for the new kids on the block so they don't get fucked.

(30-10-2012 04:58 PM)Stark Raving Wrote: It's an interesting thought. I'd be curious about how it works in other countries. Here in Canada, they don't use pot as a reason to search. Mostly, pot is found in a search for something else.

Besides, here and in the states, cops can't search you or your property (including a vehicle) without a warrant or probable cause. That is, unless you give permission. The vast majority of searches done in north america are done with consent.

The phrase, "I do not consent to any searches" is your best friend. When you are told, "if you have nothing to hide, why not just let me search. You are being suspicious" simply reply politely with, "my right to privacy is very important to me. I do not consent to any searches."

Bravo. To many fucking idiots fall for stupid-ass lines by the cops like "You're not doing anything illegal are you?" "Good, then you won't mind me searching you vehicle, do you?" Which intentionally phrased so that either yes or no could be interpreted to mean your giving him the go ahead. This is why you say "I do not give you my consent to search my vehicle." Fucking plain English and is pretty irrefutable. At this point they will probably ask you "Why not?" or "If you have nothing to hide..." or something to that effect. At this point you can either not answer their question, or tell them something like "Because I value my privacy." I hope all the children payed attention, this is valuable information. Fucking use it. All of the veteran stoners adults already knew this but I thought I would spell it for the new kids on the block so they don't get fucked.

Edit: Reread, corrected. Sorry Stark

How is "If you're not doing anything illegal.."
any more BS then "I value my privacy.."?
I agree how the cops phrase things isn't exactly fair, BUT pot calling the kettle african american.

(30-10-2012 05:16 PM)Stark Raving Wrote: If a cop sees weed, of course he has probable cause to search. But I know that when I have a body stashed in my trunk, I don't leave a bag of weed on my dash.

It's YOUR responsibility to not give a cop probable cause.

But then, if you are in keeping with your current trend, you'll argue just for the sake of arguing.

Seriously Stark?
We're going down that road.
How about you stop being a little bitch because Lucradis got his knickers in a twist.

What, a guy can't offer a hypothetical counter argument to something that everyone here agrees with should be legal.
I thought that's what that thread ended up being about, to much chatter not enough decent debate.

My bad. 100%.

Looked back and can see how you missed it. My last line was just ribbing. I guess I shouldn't have assumed you'd catch it. It's just that I see when you are joking when almost everyone else seems to miss it, so I figured you'd spot me the same way. I figured I could be a little more biting with you.

(30-10-2012 05:22 PM)earmuffs Wrote: Seriously Stark?
We're going down that road.
How about you stop being a little bitch because Lucradis got his knickers in a twist.

What, a guy can't offer a hypothetical counter argument to something that everyone here agrees with should be legal.
I thought that's what that thread ended up being about, to much chatter not enough decent debate.

My bad. 100%.

Looked back and can see how you missed it. My last line was just ribbing. I guess I shouldn't have assumed you'd catch it. It's just that I see when you are joking when almost everyone else seems to miss it, so I figured you'd spot me the same way. I figured I could be a little more biting with you.

Sorry dude.

ah all good don't apologies.
The down sides of interwebz. They say body language says 90% of what you're saying ie: how you're saying it, angry/joking etc.. So that 90% is generally misinterpreted on the webz.
Also I'm gonna go with the "I just woke up" excuse.

(30-10-2012 05:34 PM)Dark Light Wrote: Bravo. To many fucking idiots fall for stupid-ass lines by the cops like "You're not doing anything illegal are you?" "Good, then you won't mind me searching you vehicle, do you?" Which intentionally phrased so that either yes or no could be interpreted to mean your giving him the go ahead. This is why you say "I do not give you my consent to search my vehicle." Fucking plain English and is pretty irrefutable. At this point they will probably ask you "Why not?" or "If you have nothing to hide..." or something to that effect. At this point you can either not answer their question, or tell them something like "Because I value my privacy." I hope all the children payed attention, this is valuable information. Fucking use it. All of the veteran stoners adults already knew this but I thought I would spell it for the new kids on the block so they don't get fucked.

Edit: Reread, corrected. Sorry Stark

How is "If you're not doing anything illegal.."
any more BS then "I value my privacy.."?
I agree how the cops phrase things isn't exactly fair, BUT pot calling the kettle african american.

They're both BS to be sure. But they are also both true. It's just feeding back the bullshit that's been fed to you. Usually the first one to dish it out is the one to swallow it. Hence rule #2: offer no information. The cops asks, you answer. Stop.